Have spotted a bit of a similar issue here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6168517#map=13/-28.0105/153.4332, which has a natural river & a few "streams" running through lots of dredged out canals e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/593943553#map=13/-28.0018/153.3810.
Does this really need the relation included? Thanks Graeme On Tue, 23 May 2023 at 07:59, Little Maps <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Warin and Cleary, I’ll remove the lake from the relation and cut > the relation back to the river banks. I agree, there’s no need to add name > or other tags to the riverbank (natural=water) tags as these details are > already on the waterway and the waterway relation. Warin, I’ve never seen a > lake that has a river name on its boundaries like this, the river details > are usually on a central waterway, if one has been mapped. Thanks again, Ian > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
